Tennessee House Bill HB1440

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/16/25
• Refer: 4/17/25
• Refer: 4/21/25
• Chaptered: 5/14/25
• Passed: 5/14/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter 467 of the Private Acts of 1951; as amended by Chapter 233 of the Private Acts of 1976; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to Morgan County.

Summary

HB1440 is a local/private act for Morgan County that revises the county’s private law governing the office of County Attorney. The bill replaces the prior provision that required the County Attorney to be elected by county voters with a system in which the County Attorney is appointed or hired, subject to approval by the Morgan County Commission, for a four-year term. It also clarifies that the County Attorney must be a licensed practicing attorney, but does not have to reside in Morgan County. The bill preserves existing officeholders by stating that it does not remove any incumbent or shorten any current term. It is structured as a local option measure: it only takes effect if approved by a two-thirds vote of the Morgan County legislative body, and the county’s presiding officer must certify the result to the Secretary of State. The act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of the local approval vote, but otherwise only upon county approval.

Impact

The bill amends a Morgan County private act, changing the method of selecting the County Attorney from election by county voters to appointment or hiring by the county commission, and eliminating the county-residency requirement for that office. It affects the governance of Morgan County specifically rather than statewide law, and it operates only if the Morgan County legislative body approves it by a two-thirds vote. The bill also protects incumbents from being displaced before their terms end.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support at every stage, including committee recommendations for passage and a 94-0 floor vote on third consideration. There is no committee transcript indicating debate or opposition, and the bill advanced on the consent calendar, suggesting it was viewed as a routine local government measure with little controversy.

Contention

No recorded committee discussion or floor debate is provided, and the votes were unanimous, so there is no visible substantive opposition in the available record. The only potentially notable policy issue is the shift from an elected county attorney to an appointed/hired one, along with removal of the residency requirement, which could raise questions about local accountability and access to the office; however, the legislative record here does not show those concerns being raised by any specific member or stakeholder.